Svensk och Finsk jordbrukspolitik, en kalvdans i otakt : – en komparativ teoriprövande fallstudie baserad på historisk institutionalism gällande de jordbrukspolitiska målsättningarna mellan åren 1995-2015.

This study aims at examine why the agricultural policy in Sweden and Finland has turned out different, despite the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The study is a compare case study where Sweden and Finland are used to draw general conclusions. The question asked to pursue the aim are; what kind of agricultural goals did Sweden and Finland negotiate for during the membership-process to the European Union (EU), what kind of agricultural goals did the both states negotiate for during the reform of CAP 2003 and 2015, are their differences in the national regulations that can explain the actual development and can the agricultural policy today be seen as a result from the goals during the membership-process? In this study an analytical model is created and used to analyze the aim, the model is based on the theory of historical institutionalism to describe the general development and it’s also applied in the empirical analysis. The empirical material consists of books, articles and primary document etc. One general conclusion asserts that the actual development in the agricultural policy can be traced back in the historic context. In Sweden’s case the process can be connected to the agricultural deregulation that took place before the membership. In Finland’s case the development can be associated with the overproduction during the 1960-1970 and its goals with a high level of self-sufficiency. Another conclusion affirms that the national regulation where Sweden and Finland has had the opportunity to shape their own regulations and structures is one of several explanations to the aim